woodguru

It's fairly obvious that the senate is going to run a sham and mock "trial". But I truly think that there will have to be an attempt to make it look good, and if they don't the fact that it hasn't been done with even a semblance of fairness and integrity will forever label it as a farce, and history will reflect that trump was in fact fairly impeached by the house.

When the GOP uses anything as a defence for trump as they lamely tried in house hearings, there will be a response. It's one thing when you can run an entirely rhetorical narrative that does not have an ability to be responded to formally by an opposition in a trial response setting. It's another when your point for defense is made and an opposing point is made for the record. Roberts is going to be presiding, and I don't think he will be able to pull a McConnell and say nope, you cannot respond to that defense.

There is no defense for trump besides some truly pathetic arguments based on what went on within the limited confines of an irrelevant phone call, there is so much more...and every time a lame defense is put forward they will get k**led with the facts that we already know. Not to mention there will be numerous calls to hear from people like Bolton and Mulvaney, and others who could set the record straight.

When they want to hear from the whistleblower, the point will be made that it would be far more relevant to hear from the Intelligence Community Inspector General, seeing as how he processed and investigated the WB report he is the one that could tell us dozens of far more relevant things. Barr could tell us under oath why he came to the conclusion that there was nothing criminal or illegal here, despite the fact that the IC IG and acting intelligence head thought there was.

Whether the senate runs a sham or they get hurt by being unable to keep facts they'd like to avoid from being relevant here, this is not going to go well for the GOP and trump. We have enough people in this country who are intelligent and aware enough to know a BS "trial" when they see it.

Running a trial on the Bidens and the whistleblower, no matter what they "find", is not going to change the facts about what trump did. I think the more of a sham McConnell turns this into the worse it will be, and it will be followed by an avalanche of constant new facts about what went on here as reporters keep digging, and insiders keep leaking...

...right up to the e******n, count on it.

Coos Bay Tom Loc: coos bay oregon

You are correct

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Pipe dreams. Wishful thinking. Mountains out of molehills. Don't you pogues ever consider how out of touch you are with reality? Do you even realize how lame the current articles of impeachment are? After three years of repeated attempts to pin something - anything - on president Trump, abuse of power and obstruction of congress are the best the damned fools can come up with? This entire impeachment charade is a political sham. Not to mention the fact that this scandalous political game will disenfranchise 63 million American v**ers.

The Democratic articles of impeachment are utterly unconvincing and set an awful precedent

As the Democrat-controlled House Judiciary Committee has approved its two articles of impeachment against President Trump, I decided to do something too few pundits will, unfortunately, bother with before shooting off tweets or writing up hot takes. I read the actual text of the articles of impeachment. Twice.

I’m walking away utterly unconvinced. I'm not exactly a big fan of Trump, but I just don’t see anything in the Democrats’ case for impeachment that comes even close to meeting the high threshold warranting the removal of a sitting president. To preempt the will of the e*****rate from being heard in 2020 over the charges described in these articles would be ludicrous.

For all their promises and grandstanding, and despite having had since November 2016 to plan this impeachment, the Democrats have completely failed, in their most important document, to articulate what actual crime the president has committed.

On the very first page of the articles of impeachment, Democrats say they are “impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.” But nowhere in the following pages are “high crimes” or “misdemeanors” clearly laid out.

Article one charges that President Trump committed an “abuse of power” in his dealings with Ukraine. The second article alleges that he has “obstructed Congress.” Concerning as it may be, “abusing power” is not itself a crime, although obstruction of Congress can be.

Yet, it’s ridiculous to argue that a president should be tossed out of office for ignoring congressional subpoenas. So, too, it’s mind-boggling to think that launching an impeachment investigation into a president that does not involve an actual crime then becomes impeachable just because the accused doesn’t bend over backwards to comply with the congressional campaign against him. Refusal to comply with subpoenas is a separation of powers issue that comes up quite often, actually. Typically, Congress pursues a remedy in court.

This is a sad joke. It rises nowhere near the level where we could justify upending our democracy and tearing the country apart along partisan seams.

None of this is to say that Trump is innocent. The president did indeed abuse his power by pressuring the Ukrainian president to investigate the Bidens over H****r B***n's shady, if not illegal, business in Ukraine. Trump was certainly wrong in only releasing congressionally approved aid to Ukraine after he’d been caught leveraging it for political purposes. This is indeed an abuse of p**********l power, and it might be worthy of a formal censure.

Yet nowhere in these impeachment articles do Democrats bother to make the case that this p**********l misdeed is a “high crime.” Democrats accuse Trump of “compromising national security” and say he “ignored and injured the interests of the Nation.” But that’s an argument they need to make to v**ers as to why he’s not the best representative of their interests. Bad policy is not a crime, let alone an excuse for preempting an e******n that Democrats seem afraid they might lose.

Politicians “abuse their power” every day, and it’s an inherently subjective charge. That Trump abused power simply isn’t enough in itself to warrant his removal.

For instance, President Barack Obama f**grantly abused his power by making illegal recess appointments, an act for which he was repudiated by a unanimous Supreme Court that included two of his appointees — nobody considered impeachment as the remedy. He also arguably abused his power by attempting to rewrite i*********n l*ws through executive fiat via the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which sought to protect “Dreamers” who came to the country illegally at a young age. Obama deserved to be rebuked in the courts, and he may soon be, but this didn’t warrant the Democrat getting thrown out of office.

If we start impeaching every president who arguably “abuses” power, an inherently subjective, nonlegal characterization, we will literally end up impeaching every future president. In our hyperpartisan age, members of the opposing party will always think the president is abusing his or her power in one way or another. Setting the precedent that abuses of power are impeachment-worthy is a recipe for tearing the country apart and will only further worsen Washington’s partisan gridlock.

For those who set partisanship and tribal loyalties aside, the proper solution here is clear. In the absence of any a high crime emerging, v**ers should simply be allowed to decide in November whether they still want Trump as president.

There are 31 House democrats whose districts v**ed overwhelmingly for Trump and when they break for the holidays, they'll go home and face constituents who will want to know just what the hell they think they are doing.

Coos Bay Tom Loc: coos bay oregon

One word-- courage